On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 11:22 -0800, Mickael Maddison wrote: > Thursday, January 19, 2006, 10:14:54 AM, you wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 09:11 -0800, Paul Heinlein wrote: > >> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Fong Vang wrote: > >> > >> > Did you just ended up running without hyperthreading? Did you ever > >> > find a solution? It seems an awful waste if you can't use it. > >> > >> I'd have a hard time calling a performance hit of no more than 10% to > >> 15% (and typically much less than that) an "awful waste." :-) > > > exactly ... hyperthreading is mostly "hype" ... and very little > > "rthreading" :) > > I've heard a lot of criticism on hyperthreading on various lists. > While I haven't actually measured the performance of a machine that > has it enabled vs. disabled, I have noticed that the same machine with > hyperthreading enabled responds much faster to SSH logins etc. when > the machine is under heavy loads. Given that I've had no problems > with using HT, I'm happy to have it. > Absolutely, if it works on given hardware then use it, any performance gain is worth having :) But if you look objectively at the gain, it is not 2x the performance ... maybe 1.25x ... maybe a little more ... maybe not. If it is broken, it is not the end of the world though, which I think was the initial point. It is not nearly as much an increase in performance as you see with dual core processors, for example. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060119/5838bfb4/attachment-0005.sig>